So we have different experiences. That's cool. But I have it installed along with winpatrol and malwarebytes on 9 computers. That combination along with an aware user has stopped everything that has tried to infect. With an unaware user, not so much. So each person to their own experiences and preferences. You can argue the point, but I won't argue along with you on this.

However, you are running complementary programs alongside MSE in order to provide accurate security. WinPatrol and MalwareBytes are both awesome products. Have you ever seen MSE stop anything from installing other than a keygen/crack, though?

Yes, as does a huge segment of the industry like the CSO at Symantec that point blank said AV software doesn't work anymore. I've seen many large and small operations that were fighting tooth-and-nail to stay above water as the flood of sales drones kept selling them more and more performance crushing "Security" software that never resulted in any real benefit. Then they tried the reduced permissions route and their support call loads dropped by 85% over night. It really is that flat-out magical a result.

Any and all AV software on the market is nothing more than a hand over hand pissing contest trying to be the last one to hook into control of the kernel. And I don't want a medieval melee on my network ... I want orderly quiet Users.. If anyone needs the Admin...I'll be in my office....where I belong ... Not chasing rats around on the floor.

User can't break machine == Bugg can't break machine.

Yes there are the occasional 0 day privilege escalation bugs floating around out there...but those aren't the ones that IT departments typically waste most of their time chasing. Oh Dear, my computer has an issue, but I just need to click here to "fix" it ... F...........

I'm not sure John McAfee is a valid reputable source for anything computing-related anymore. Not only has he been out of the industry for years, but there is that whole 'delusional on an exotic island under the influence of bath salts, accused of at least one murder, and insisted he was the target of a drug cartel in spite of there being no evidence to the contrary' back-story.

The man does not have both oars in the water.

As for the fellow at Symantec, if they believe anti-virus software doesn't work? Why are they still selling it? This one statement has now wondering about the moral compass of this company and its employees. Of course, AV software is not as effective as it once was as threats have evolved and it takes more than just a good AV to be secure these days. This is why Defense in Depth and Defense in Layers has come into being.

Computers and networks are becoming more difficult to defend. No one can dispute this. It's just a lot harder than just slapping the first AV you download onto the PC and calling it a day. Not only does the AV have to be good, but the anti-malware as well. While you're at it, you need a good firewall that will monitor (and optionally block) anything outgoing as well as incoming. Those are just the basics. There's more than can (and should) be done.

Maybe Symantec's just upset that glossy ads no longer guarantee a fat bottom line anymore? For one thing, glossy ads are almost a thing of the past as physical magazine sales dwindle. For another, consumers are getting smarter and not mindlessly buying whatever trialware was bundled with their new PC any longer. Symantec's never been ones for innovation. Their strong suit is more along the lines of buying other companies and sucking the life out of the acquired product lines. They are the productivity version of Electronic Arts.

I'm not sure John McAfee is a valid reputable source for anything computing-related anymore. Not only has he been out of the industry for years, but there is that whole 'delusional on an exotic island under the influence of bath salts, accused of at least one murder, and insisted he was the target of a drug cartel in spite of there being no evidence to the contrary' back-story.

Of course, there is the official account of actions. But there's always another side to every story. And everyone is entitled to their read of whatever is posed.

I'm on the other side of that. He seems quite rational, quite engaging, and quite credible. And I remember the story of others who have tried to pull the wool out from over our eyes, which makes him more credible, not less. And the others who have quite credibly and separately verified part of his claims.

I'm on the other side of that. He seems quite rational, quite engaging, and quite credible. And I remember the story of others who have tried to pull the wool out from over our eyes, which makes him more credible, not less. And the others who have quite credibly and separately verified part of his claims.